GameMakersToolkit
patreon
Thoughts on Red Dead Redemption 2 (No spoilers)
🕑 Added 2018-11-07 14:11:01 +0000 UTC Hey there! So, I finally finished Red Dead Redemption 2. Or, there about. There’s a huge great epilogue but I think I’ve had my fill on this one. Instead, I wanted to offer up some spoiler free thoughts on the game’s design, and also see what you all thought about this one!Ride ‘Em Cowboy
Overall, I’m left pretty disappointed by the game - and that’s largely because it feels staggeringly dated in its core design.
A lot has happened in open world games in the last eight years, since the release of Red Dead Redemption 1.
Shadow of Mordor focused on relationships and procedurally generated stories. Ubisoft’s recent games went hard on systemic interactions to create crazy anecdotes of rampaging elephants (Far Cry) and gang warfare (Watch Dogs 2). Metal Gear Solid V took immersive sim agency into the open world. And Zelda Breath of the Wild blurred the line between the main and side quests, and built an entire chemistry system to play with.
RDR 2 has tiny pinches of this - a stranger might remember you from a sidequest. There’s some light fire propagation. There are some opportunities to make choices - but for the most part, it’s using the exact same structure and gameplay as the first Red Dead.
Mission Failed
You can feel this most vividly during the game’s main missions.
Like most Rockstar games, these missions are extremely restrictive in what you’re allowed to do. The game constantly tells you what to do, with a pop up command at the bottom of the screen, and if you don’t follow this script to the letter you’ll be hit with a “Failed” screen.
I’ve failed missions for trying to flank around the bad guys - that’s counted as leaving my crew behind. I’ve failed for trying to take enemies out using stealth, instead of loud gunfire. I’ve failed for trying to solve problems in creative ways. I’ve failed because I broke the law - never mind that I’m playing as an outlaw, and the game has a whole police response system built in.
The missions can also remove mechanics arbitrarily. In one, I wasn’t allowed to take my gun off my horse. In another, I wasn’t allowed to whistle for my horse so I had to chase on foot. And the bandit mask system works randomly during missions - most of the time you’ll still get a huge price on your head and have to use most of your earnings from that mission to pay off your bounty.
Unfortunately, most of the missions are also simply quite dull. There’s so much riding towards waypoints. Waiting for characters to do stuff. Listening to people go on and on. Bad insta-fail stealth missions. Endless cover-based shootouts that feel like they’re from the previous generation. Following characters as they walk slowly through the woods.
There are some standouts here and there, which I won’t spoil. And the musical choices frequently elevate things. But most are completely forgettable. And in a world of games like The Witcher 3, where almost every quest is memorable, that’s a disappointment.
Cowboy Simulator
Outside of missions, the game shines a lot, lot harder.
One of my favourite sessions with the game was when I purposefully ignored the main story. I simply explored the world for a while. I robbed a man for his treasure map, and followed it to find hidden gold. I stumbled upon a strange skeleton in the mountains. Tracked and fought legendary animals. Got ambushed by rival gangs.
This stuff is a lot more interesting. It feels more dynamic, and less like you’re following a predetermined script. The game is also more open in how you approach things. An escaped prisoner might appear with chains around his ankles. You can shoot them to free him, or simply hogtie him and take him to the Sheriff’s office to get a big bounty.
This is also just a vividly beautiful game, and the world is begging for you to explore it. Though, it has that age-old open world problem of the outer reaches of the world (like some of the bigger towns) feeling kind of dead until you reach them in the story.
The problem is that the game still has a stark divide between main missions (heavily scripted stuff that pushes you towards the next chapter) and side content (optional stuff that has very little impact on the game).
So, like a lot of (older) open world games, it feels like you’re either working or wasting time.
Camp Cowboy
And the annoying thing is: the game almost had an interesting solution for this! You see, the game’s got this camp thing going on, where your band of outlaws is hanging out in the wilderness. And the idea is that everyone is contributing to the camp.
You can put money into a tin to boost funds, or bring back meat so people can eat, or do side missions for friends like finding them items in the wild.
The problem is: none of this matters. At all.
It’s worth putting some money in the money tin so you can buy a map (which unlocks fast travel), but beyond that it makes no difference. The game’s way too easy for you to care about any benefits it might provide Arthur. And the other only thing it affects is how characters talk to you in the camp: they might grumble about not having enough food or you not pulling your weight. But that’s it.
It can be fun to do this stuff from a role playing perspective, I suppose. But it could have been so much better.
Imagine a system where the only way to finish the chapter is to put a significant amount of money into the camp funds. Now, everything you do in the game is working towards that central goal: go treasure hunting, hunt animals and sell their fur, do bounty missions, rob trains, ambush stagecoaches. Everything you do gets you a little closer to the next chapter, and there’s no longer a weird divide between main and side content.
Okay, yeah, I stole this from Breath of the Wild where you’re simply training Link to be strong enough to face Ganon, so everything you do in the game is made meaningful. (Also this system could have all sorts of interesting consequences, like having rival gangs try to steal from the camp. Or putting real consequences on dying before you can get back to the camp to bank your latest earnings).
As it stands, though, the game feels like it has a split personality - between the more freeform sandbox stuff, and the super restrictive missions. I could say that about any Rockstar game, but at this point, and with so many games innovating on the genre, I’m bored of giving Rockstar a free pass.
Shoot or shoot
Another thing that frustrates me is that you are so limited in how you can interact with the world.
Okay, so the game does have a system where you can “talk” to anyone in the game, and do things like greet people, antagonise them, and try to defuse situations. And that’s really cool - it’s great to have a game where you can interact with NPCs in more ways than just shooting or slugging them.
But it’s very limited in scope. It’s not exactly Fallout. It’s not even Fallout 4, to be honest. And most interactions with NPCs ended with me either walking away or shooting. Or their AI going a bit weird. In one instance, I agreed to help someone, then accidentally nudged them with my horse. They ran away, screaming at me like I was a murderer and there was no way to apologise.
But even when you do go violent, the game doesn’t give you many verbs to play with. You can’t create a distraction, like in MGS V, so you can sneak into a camp unnoticed. You can’t steal weapons while enemies sleep, like in BOTW, so they wake up unarmed. You can’t create traps (Metal Gear), lead the law into gang territory (Watch Dogs 2), boobytrap alarms (Assassin’s Creed Origins), and so on. It’s often shoot, or shoot.
Realism
The big buzz word surrounding Red Dead is realism. You can bathe! Your beard grows in real time! Your horse’s testicles expand and shrink depending on the temperature! Arthur can physically open up cupboard doors and chests to look for loot! The animations, volume of voice acting, and tiny details are certainly impressive.
But it’s a mixed bag for me.
What I do like is that the game isn’t littered with HUD elements and menus and other tacky stuff. Compare this to Assassin’s Creed Odyssey, where every character has a garish outline and a health bar. And there’s a trillion pop-up notifications on screen. And so on. Red Dead feels grounded and tactile and real - it’s lot less gamey.
But sometimes "gamey" is fine. You don’t want to watch a detailed animation every time you skin an animal, or loot a body, or pick a flower. You start to realise why most games just make that stuff teleport into your pocket. It’s not because the devs are lazy - it’s because that stuff gets boring. Fast.
Like, the game’s got this really detailed menu for shopping where you flip through an old fashioned catalogue of hats, or whatever. But that’s really cumbersome, so it also has the exact same information in a different, more video gamey menu that’s easier to use.
And also there’s an uncanny valley effect going on here. The more the game tries to seem realistic, the more surprising it is when the game won’t let you do stuff.
Oh, and it’s also impossible to look at this stuff without thinking about the reported worker conditions at Rockstar. I would happily trade away things like realistic footprints and animals doing true-to-life poos if it meant the developers could work more sensible hours.
Overall
Red Dead Redemption 2 was a big let down for me. By ignoring all of the strides made in open world games since the release of Red Dead 1, which have made those titles feel more lively and dynamic and responsive, Red Dead 2 feels kind of lifeless and fake.
And that’s despite Rockstar’s extreme push towards realism. Because the game just ends up feeling like those phoney western movie sets that look like saloons and banks on one side, and unpainted planks of wood on the other. It’s not fooling anyone.
The main missions are restrictive and ultimately quite boring. But the side content, which is much better, doesn’t push the game forward. It has done nothing to fix the fundamental problem of Rockstar's games.
Here's the thing. The game’s narrative is all about trying to hold onto the old way of doing things - and sticking to practices of the past while society marches on around you. That’s an interesting theme for a story - I just wish the gameplay didn’t stick to it as well.
Comments
ernest leitch
I was looking forward to this game but have been struggling with it. I'm still in chapter 2 but having a hard time finding the fun. I was stuck for a long time on "The first shall be the last" mission. It's in an "off limits" portion of the map and you're swarmed once you enter. I tried looking for tips to get through the mission but nothing really helped. My problem may have been doing the jailbreak mission in strawberry first because the bounty hunters made it really difficult to go anywhere. I finally found a spot on the map the two guards weren't close to and was able to reach the mission start point. After finishing the mission I was surrounded by at least 7-10 bounty hunters. I paid off the bounty from the strawberry mission and the game finally calmed down. I want to finish the game but between bounty hunters and the world being openly hostile toward you when exploring I'm having a hard time enjoying it.
Me too
So great
I quite like it :)
John Yorke
I found this analysis quite hard to read as I’ve been having an absolute blast in RDR2 and it’s made me question everything. It feels to me like a role playing game in the most literal sense. A lot of what I do in that game are a result of me thinking as Arthur, eg. “I need a drink after that” despite the drink having little to no impact on the game - I just felt like Arthur needed one. And the same goes for sleeping, procrastenating, bathing, getting my hair cut - more so than any other game I’ve played I have got invested in the character and his wants and needs. There’s gotta be something to be said for that.
Then you should play New Vegas. Every factions and NPCs react to your choices. And if feels more ALIVE than RDR 2 which has no choice and does not make you feel like you are having some important role in the world. I am not saying RDR 2 should have same amount of choices just like New Vegas has. What I am saying is that RDR 2's world felt really void and dull compared to other good open world games. Even some games are not open world like Prey and Dishonored.
Mitchell Dale
Preach!
Erika Ironer
I do believe that if you liked the first Red Dead and what it tried to do with immersion trough a cinematic way, you’ll like this game.
Katja Petrovic
These sound similar to criticisms you had of the latest Tomb Raider - elements that conflict with and undermine each other (e.g., scripted story/open-world exploration; likeable main character/massive violence). I would love an analysis of why so many AAA games have this problem. It's like the devs decide ahead of time what elements "need" to be in the game and then splice them together regardless of whether it makes sense.
Alot of this kind of open world design was archaic after Ultima 7 came out way back in 1992, let alone since RDR1. Maybe even Ultima 6. And again, in certain respects, after Morrowind, STALKER, FarCry 2, etc.
In addition, I'm pretty sure this is a problem that most Rockstar games suffer from. Having "making money" be the incentive of EVERY side activity in these open worlds instantly makes them all pointless the second you give the player $100,000 for doing some shallow scripted main mission. Rockstar seriously needs to revise their game economies. I swear Rockstar have the only games that could benefit from incentivising a bit of grinding. They had no problem letting players grind in GTA Online..? Wonder why that was..?
Great piece. You touched upon my main issue with the game here. Once I realised this, I immediately struggled to enjoy the game in any capacity. Beyond a few characters telling me off, there's absolutely no incentive to feeding the gang. It's literally a fake mechanic. I know they can bring more money into the camp if they're well fed, but that ties into another issue I'm having. What's use is Tilly bringing 80c into the camp's fund, when I can just dump some of the THOUSANDS of dollars I have been too generously given in main missions? I've already bought all the camp upgrades, all the weapons I need, souped up my horse, and I STILL have a surplus of money to spare. I'm not even half way through the game, too.
Well the sales numbers are telling otherwise. "people" criticizing the game is mostly the vocal minority on net, I believe every one else (even those minority) are having hell of a time with it. The first game was also bashed with criticism but eventually was a massive success and left a huge mark on the game industry.
I don't get it. You have the cinematic and scripted side of things and also get the amazing systemic world at your disposal. I agree to some extent that they could implement something like nemesis system here, but you already got an extremely intelligent wild life and you can go at it. The nature is doing its thing while the people are going about their business as if they are really there. I have not experienced a more alive open world, every other open world game looks dull and void compare to this.
I'm about 20 hours in and spent a good chunk of that freely roaming around the map, and what's bothered me the most is the lack of incentive and reward the game provides for playing in that style. I came across a huge cave network, only to find that there was quite literally nothing in it. I was so annoyed I looked up the place in a guide and it turns out it serves a significance only if you complete a specific chain of events that in reality shouldn't affect the appearance of that event/item (trying to be vague here). And this happened time and time again where something would catch my eye or I'd stumble into something truly unique-looking only to have nothing happen -- no rewards, no NPCs, no insight into local lore. At least in BoTW if a mountain top caught your eye, you would find a korok seed at a minimum, but no such luck in RDR2. Exploring is rewarded sparingly and/or through the linear and boring "Challenges". There are so many interesting and beautiful parts of the world, but they're so rarely made to be interesting to the player's own ambitions.
Maene Erinys
I was going to write a comment in the main thread, but you summed up all my thoughts so well that I'll just add to it. I agree that making the camp more central to the gameplay would be nice, the main missions are a too scripted and that the "shoot or shoot" situation is indeed lackluster, but boy am I liking RDR2 way more than I thought I would (which wasn't much). It is actually the opposite of BOTW for me, which I had high hopes for, but ended up not even finishing (granted, it was in part caused by my frustration with the very bad framerate in the Wii U version). I think it is in great part because in BOTW, I always felt like all I could do was combat or trade, and since it was a "save the world" story, any time I tried to explore, it was a waste of time, while in RDR2, I played more than 15 hours, and I'm barely finishing chapter 2, because since there is no urgency in the missions and there is more to do than combat, I feel pretty OK to play one hour after work, and just go around trying to get someone to pay it's debt, then help someone on the road, find a wolf, take it's skin, go to Valentine to sell it, end up visiting the Saloon, drink some beer, play some poker, get in a fight, take a shower afterwards, then go back to camp to celebrate the return of a certain person. The main thing that is making me fall in love with this game is how I can create my own narrative, without needing to resort to violence that much. Sure, it could be better, but it is making this job way better than BOTW for me, in a setting where (at least for now) I don't feel like I'm wasting my time, because (at least for now) I don't need to save the world, fight the big bad or save a princess, I can just live a life as an outlaw in the old west, and however limited it is, I'm enjoying it greatly.
Josh Foreman
Glad to hear you bring up the design uncanny valley. I haven't heard that talked about before. I mentioned that in one of our game analysis vid. (Link to the proper moment below) I'm curious if anyone else has seen conversation on that concept. <a href="https://youtu.be/6viAQjxotfc?t=521" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">https://youtu.be/6viAQjxotfc?t=521</a>
It seems like there's a divide in the gaming world: Metacritic has ranked this game up among the greats (Ocarina of Time, etc.), but many gamers dislike the game for the same reasons you mention. Are the mainstream gaming media out of touch, or do they have a gaming preference (i.e. for open-world concepts, realism, and great graphics opposed to gamer types like yourself Mark who push for innovative and polished gameplay).
andSam
I'm curious how I'll like the game when I get to it. I've always been a fan of both linear action games and open world games, so it kind of sounds like it's the game for me. I've never thought about disliking it because the two halves are at extreme odds, though.
Good write up, though I'm definitely more positive on the game than you. Things I'm not liking are the archaic, needlessly crusty controls (the shooting is still just as garbage as Rockstar's past three games) and the overall sense that the game is, indeed, the same thing we've played before just with some fresh paint.
So I do agree with you on the flexibility of BOTW's open world. You really can solve problems in a multitude of ways, and is much more of a sandbox than RDR2. But ultimately BOTW's story left me cold. I wish I could experience how the world is different after Ganon is defeated. Link is a silent protagonist and his internal character motivations are lackluster. That's generally been the case in Zelda games, but in BOTW even more so, since Link has lost all his memories. I'd much rather play a version of BOTW where the story revolved around the events that were depicted in those cutscenes of Link's memories. I'm not yet complete with RDR2's main story, but I have really loved listening to the character's interactions with each other and their responses to the events of the story. Reading Arthur's journal after each mission and seeing his insecurities and anxieties is also really great. So to the extent that RDR2 prioritizes story over 'sandboxness', I don't mind. The biggest point I agree with you on is the missed opportunity in RDR2 on making the camp mechanics more central to the story. It's disappointing to hear that the level of progress in the camp does not significantly impact the rest of the world.
Kyle O'reilly
Ctrl+F Howdy Partner = 0 results.
I agree. It's very clear to me that this is as much as problem with the nature of the industry today as it is with game design. This is an industry where the vast majority of media attention given to any game has moved on to newer releases long before the novelty of such gimmicks wears off.
Don’t agree with the idea that the game isn’t systemic enough. I feel like a lot of what Rockstar has done to make the world feel alive and connected in this game shows in someone interactions outside the world. Your video about systemic games where you praise GTA just for having a wanted system is present in this game too, and if anything it’s actually added onto in comparison to their other games because witnesses are now a gameplay mechanic where you have to choose what to do with them, instead of just magically getting hunted down by the cops while you’re in the middle of the desert. I feel like you bringing up the random encounters on the roads that can either come back to help you or haunt you as just snippets is sort of disingenuous, too. You can kinda say the same thing in terms of Watch Dogs 2’s gang system, they’re just small examples of over-arching connectivity, which is in RDR2 with the concept of the honor system which has a whole lot of rewards and punishments depending on if you want high or low honor. I agree with that gameplay being generic and outdated though. It seems like every other Rockstar game but with a coat of paint applied to it. But I enjoy that, Rockstar’s games usually immerse enough to get me to enjoy and complete them and the variety in things you can do outside of missions if sort of what people enjoy Rockstar games in general for.
Great read. And I don't even have a PS4, but I becomed interest in it given all the fuss. Thank you.
Enjoyed this read, thank you.
Erika Ironer
That’s so strange, I loved both BoTw and Red Dead 2 for essentially the same reason, making me feel like I’m alive in a breathing world. I feel both games successfully did that. Red Dead 2 was just more linear then BoTW, but I enjoyed the characters and story so much that Many of us were invested on doing the story, i guess it just come down to if you want to play this type of story on a game and you always seem like the type to not play games for its story :)
For me playing Red Dead 2 made me miss BotW for some reason...
I think what you describe is a result of the development method Rockstar has chosen to create the huge games they're known for. You could make systems that tightly interact, like some of the other open world games you mentioned. That would take a lot of coordination, and gets exponentially harder as the dev team grows. Or you could just make a lot of "stuff" to put in the game, which scales up much more easily. It seems to work out for them sales wise.
Jackson McMahan
Sorry to hear that Red Dead 2 is disappointing. As someone whose only experience with this game is watching footage, I can definitely see where you're coming from in that the missions are restrictive, realism may not always be necessary, and the world lacks the mechanical scope of others.
Game Maker's Toolkit
I think I'd like to do something on this genre-wide issue of having a disconnect between the missions and sandbox, and how certain games have tried to fix it
Reutermo
Good write up. Even though I don't agree on all your points (I think the missions are pretty good and varied, especially for a Rockstar game) I can totally see where you are coming from. Personally I am surprised how much I like it. The first game never really catched my interest and GTA isn't my sort of game at all, but here I quite like this little Cowboy simulator. I would if it was a little more RPG-esque though. I quite liked the gang and the people in it, and would have loved to interact with them more. Maybe in some sort of Dragon Age way where you could have become a close friend to one, rival to another and a lover to a third and so on. There are some really interesting characters there and they hint on cool backstories, would have loved to know more about that.
James McNeill
Are there any plans for a full-fledged video on RDR2?
